Syed Bukhari [2026] FWC 625 (25 February 2026)

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Unfair deactivation application - jurisdictional objection - deactivation occurred prior to 26 August 2024 - no jurisdiction for Commission to deal with application - application dismissed

[1] Mr Syed Bukhari (the applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) for an unfair deactivation remedy.

[2] Section 536LU is within Part 3A-3 (Unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) of the FW Act.

[3] The applicant alleges that he was deactivated by Uber Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) in October 2022. The respondent accepts that the application was deactivated in October 2022. Therefore, there is no factual dispute as to the effective date of the applicant's deactivation.

• [4] On 5 February 2026, my chambers emailed the applicant, drawing his attention to the fact that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with an application in relation to a deactivation which took effect prior to 24 August 2024. This email attached a copy of my decision in Salman Tariq,[1] which set out the relevant law. The applicant was provided an opportunity to make written submissions in relation to the jurisdictional issue. The applicant did not respond to this correspondence, nor to a follow up email sent by the Commission on 13 February 2026.

[5] On 16 February 2026, the Commission then wrote to the parties, noting that the applicant had failed to respond and requested that the respondent confirm its agreement with the applicant's contention that he was deactivated in October 2022. This email put the parties on notice that I was considering whether or not to dismiss the application, having regard to the relevant operation of the Act as set out in Tariq (a further copy of which was attached).

[6] On 18 February 2026, the respondent confirmed that it did not dispute the applicant's contention that he was dismissed in October 2022. I then wrote to the parties advising that I had reserved my decision in the matter and it would be issued in due course.

[7] Part 3A-3 of the FW Act was enacted by amendments made by Part 16 of Schedule 1 of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Amending Act).

[8] Part 18 of Schedule 1 of the FW Act deals with transitional provisions relating to amendments made by Part 16 of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act.

[9] Clause 124 of Part 18 of Schedule 1 of the FW Act relevantly provides as follows:

(1) Part 3A-3 (unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) applies to a deactivation or termination that occurs after commencement.

[10] Clause 123 of Part 18 of Schedule 1 of the FW Act defines commencement as follows:

Commencement means the commencement of item 238 of Part 16 of Schedule 1 of the amending act.

[11] By operation of item 22 of s 2(1) of the Amending Act, item 238 of Part 16 of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act commenced on 26 August 2024.

[12] Having regard to the statutory provisions of the FW Act and the Amending Act as set out above, it is apparent that Part 3-3A of the Act has no application to a deactivation which occurred prior to 26 August 2024.

[13] Consequently, given that the applicant's deactivation occurred in October 2022, Part 3-3A has no application to the applicant's deactivation. Therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's application under s 536LU.

[14] I order that the applicant's application to the Commission under s 536LU be dismissed.

[1] [2025] FWC 3034.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer